Bonilla v. Jones
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-00656
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonilla v. Spero, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying additional legal bars.
Steven Wayne Bonilla’s multiple civil-rights cases against various federal and state court judges were dismissed with prejudice; pending motions were terminated and the cases were closed.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Joseph C. Spero, et al., a condemned state prisoner filed multiple civil-rights complaints without a lawyer against various federal and state court judges. He challenged his conviction and the handling of his habeas petitions and other cases.
The court ruled that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fee because his allegations did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. The court also said that, even if he were allowed to proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by other legal doctrines. It dismissed the cases with prejudice.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also stated that the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings did not create a reasonable question about her impartiality, even though Bonilla named her as a defendant in one case. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return future documents submitted in them without filing them.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. Jones · No. 4:21-cv-00656
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 29, 2021
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He represented himself in these cases. The defendants included various federal and state court judges. The complaints presented similar claims concerning Bonilla’s underlying conviction and the way state and federal courts handled his self-represented habeas petitions and other cases.
The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal habeas petition in the same court with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state habeas proceedings.
Filing-fee status and dismissal
The court held that, to the extent Bonilla sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, he was barred from doing so under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such danger.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under doctrines and rules identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The court therefore dismissed the cases with prejudice. The opinion did not resolve the underlying challenges to Bonilla’s conviction or to the handling of his other court proceedings.
Impartiality and case closure
The court stated that these were not cases in which Judge Hamilton’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. A footnote explains that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in one case, but that complaint made no specific allegations against her.
The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the cases based on the filing-fee restriction and threshold legal bars rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.